It seems like backward thinking to me. If you have to use UNDER with OF,
that means you're defining a type which includes the attributes of the
UNDER class as well as that of the OF class, and adding your own
attributes too. A brain dead form of multiple inheritance? I don't know
what they were thinking here.
Stephan Szabo wrote:>> I'd say so, yes. The OF <user-defined type> doesn't appear to be
optional> in> that part of the rule.>> > Do people interpret this syntax to mean that you can only have an
UNDER> > clause when using the OF <user-defined type> clause as well?> >> >> > <table definition> ::=> >
CREATE [ <table scope> ] TABLE <table name>> > <table contents source>> > [ ON
COMMIT<table commit action> ROWS ]> >> > <table contents source> ::=> > <table element list>>
> | OF <user-defined type>> > [ <subtable clause> ]> > [ <table
elementlist> ]> > <subtable clause> ::=> > UNDER <supertable clause>
